Landscape Of History

1697 Words7 Pages
Historical Representation and Maps and Territories History is explained through stories, just as territories are explained through maps. However, these stories and maps are just representations of what is actually real. One cannot claim to know exactly what happened at a certain time or place without having in fact been there to experience it for them self. Just as one cannot claim to know what a place looks like unless they have indeed been to that specific territory. Neil Gaiman and John Lewis Gaddis support these statements, and each other, in their pieces, a passage from Fragile Things, and the book, The Landscape of History. Each writer thoroughly complicates the relationship between a map and a territory, and historical representation,…show more content…
In the first chapter of his book, The Landscape of History, John Lewis Gaddis says, “But consider the power of metaphor, on the one hand, and the particular combination of economy and intensity with which visual images can express metaphor, on the other,” (2). This is one of the more intricate quotes pulled from Gaddis, where he is basically saying that not only do metaphors represent stories that are used to describe history, but also that metaphors can be images that are being used to represent something much larger. For example, historians tell a story like what actually happened, and maps show features that are like the territory that it is representing. Another thing Gaddis states in chapter one is, “The best you can do, whether with a prince or a landscape or the past, is to represent reality: to smooth over the details, to look for larger patterns, to consider how you can use what you see for your own purposes,” (7). Which supports the point being made that history may only be represented by a story as land may only be represented by a map. Neither of which are the real things once the details have been smoothed over and things have been altered to be of use for the…show more content…
Both of these men invite controversy in what they say, but confidently support the points they are trying to get across. After not only reading, but understanding the writing of each of them, it is more clear that a historian and a cartographer are not necessarily liars or fakes, but they also do not get every exact detail down because that would be a replica rather than a representation, which would be impossible to have considering they are completely inaccessible. For them, it is about selectivity and persuasion. They each must choose what they feel is most relevant and important, and persuade their viewers to believe it and agree. That is what makes a great historian and cartographer; not getting all of them, but getting the right facts, details, and features down for their proposed
Open Document